JHR 97: 29-42 (2024) or JOURNAL OF = *2eereewee openasces journal doi: 10.3897/jhr.97.1 13231 RESEARCH ARTICLE (-f-) Hymenopter a x https://jhr.pensoft.net The international Society of Hymenopteriss REGEARCH High hymenopteran parasitoid infestation rates in Czech populations of the Euphydryas aurinia butterfly inferred using a new molecular marker Hana Konvickova'’, Vaclav John'??, Martin Konvi¢ka'?, Michal Rindos!'?, Jan Hréek'? I Institute of Entomology, Biology Centre CAS, Branisovska 31, CZ-37005 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic 2 Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branisovska 1760, CZ-37005 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic 3 Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic, Kaplanova 1931/1, CZ-14800, Praha 11, Czech Republic Corresponding author: Hana Konvickova (hpatzenhauerova@gmail.com) Academic editor: Petr Jansta | Received 24 September 2023 | Accepted 8 January 2024 | Published 29 January 2024 https://z0obank. org/144B6E44-54F0-4B DD-84AA-833A0EC6533A Citation: Konvickova H, John V, Konvicka M, Rindo’ M, Hréek J (2024) High hymenopteran parasitoid infestation rates in Czech populations of the Euphydryas aurinia butterfly inferred using a new molecular marker. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 97: 29-42. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.97.113231 Abstract We apply a molecular approach to quantify the level of hymenopteran parasitoids infestation in the lar- vae of the marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia), a declining butterfly species, in western Bohemia, Czech Republic, in two subsequent years. We used the novel primer HymR157 in combination with known universal 28SD1F to establish a PCR detection system which amplifies hymenopteran parasitoids, but not the lepidopteran host. In the 14 sampled E. aurinia colonies, the infestation rates per individuum were 33.3% and 40.2%; whereas per sampled larval colony, these were on average 38.5% (range 0-100) and 40.1% (0-78). The per-colony infestation rates correlated with the numbers of larval webs censused per colony the year prior to sampling the parasitoids, pointing to a time lag in parasitoid infestation rates. The levels of the hymenopteran parasitoid prevalence are thus relatively high, supporting the importance of parasitoids for the population dynamics of the threatened host. The detection primers we developed can detect a range of hymenopteran parasitoids on other butterfly hosts. Keywords butterfly ecology, Braconidae, Lepidoptera, Marsh Fritillary, molecular detection, Nymphalidae, popula- tion dynamics Copyright Hana Konvickovd et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 30 Hana Konvickové et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 97: 29-42 (2024) Introduction Hymenopteran parasitoids are one of the most diverse groups of animals in terrestrial ecosystems and play a key role in the natural regulation of their host populations (La Salle and Gauld 1991; Forbes et al. 2018). The impact of parasitoids on their hosts can vary depending on their ecological specialisation, but in general they are known to cause significant levels of mortality in their hosts (Hawkins 1994). High levels of parasitism may also pose a potential threat to many threatened butterfly species, especially to vari- ous specialists in fragmented landscapes (cf. Anton et al. 2007). Species of the genus Eu- phydryas Scudder, 1872 (Nymphalidae: Melitaeini) represent a suitable system for study- ing host-parasitoid interactions, as egg clutches and webs with gregarious caterpillars can easily be detected in the field (Stamp 1981; Hula et al. 2004; Johansson et al. 2019). Previous studies using rearing have shown that the level of parasitism varied annually and depended mainly on weather conditions, which play a key role in the synchronisa- tion between larval development and the emergence of parasitoids (Porter 1979, 1983). The Marsh Fritillary, Euphydryas aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775) is an EU-protected butterfly, declining in many European countries (van Swaay et al. 2010), including the Czech Republic (Hejda et al. 2017). It belongs to a genetically polymorphic group of closely related taxa, the “E. aurinia complex” (cf. Korb et al. 2016), with a wide Palearc- tic distribution and regional habitat and host plant specificity (e.g., Munguira et al. 1997; Singer et al. 2002; Junker et al. 2010; Korb et al. 2016). In Central and Western Europe, its main habitats are oligotrophic grasslands, and the most frequently used host plant is Succisa pratensis Moench (Dipsacaceae) (Warren 1994; Anthes et al. 2003; Konvicka et al. 2003; Meister et al. 2015). The butterfly is monovoltine, with flight pe- riod in late spring/early summer when the mated females oviposit on leaf rosettes of the host plant. The larvae feed gregariously in silken webs on the plants until overwintering. They enter hibernation with the host plants’ senescence in mid-September and resume feeding solitarily in April. In the Czech Republic, the distribution is restricted to the western part of the country (Fig. 1), where it forms three distinct metapopulation clus- ters inhabiting ~90 separate oligotrophic meadow patches interconnected by dispersal (Zimmermann et al. 2011; Junker et al. 2021; Tajek et al. 2023). This system is moni- tored annually by counting larval nests (cf. Ojanen et al. 2013) and displays remarkable within-site and inter-annual dynamics with booms and bursts (John et al. in rev.). Like many other insects, E. aurinia hosts numerous hymenopteran parasitoids (Wahlberg et al. 2001; Eliasson and Shaw 2003; Stefanescu et al. 2009). The braconids of the genus Cotesia (Cameron, 1891), gregarious endoparasitoids of Lepidoptera, can be considered the most important and numerous. Their adult females oviposit into haemolymph of lepidopteran caterpillars; their larvae feed internally, break through the cuticle in the prepupal larval instar, and form silky external cocoons, in which they pupate, and from which the adult wasps hatch (Kester and Barbosa 1991; Pakarinen 2011). It was long believed that the main hymenopteran parasitoid of European Meli- taeini butterflies was Cotesia melitaearum (Wilkinson, 1937), remarkable for its pluriv- oltine development, in which successive wasp broods oviposit on successive caterpillar Molecular detection of hymenopteran parasitoids eu i. LTT Tal TaaG yn he fs | im | | [e) a Sa FY iF. O ee L he L | NS} +e 017} a aap 7 ae eee ine AEE er SELEEEEDS REET Et @ 1951-1980 [J Pr © 1981-1996 © 1997-2001 @ since 2002 Figure |. The distribution of Euphydryas aurinia in the Czech Republic, historic records included, based on Benes et al. (2002), with actualisations. The inset in upper right corner shows the position of the country in Europe. instars (Shaw et al. 2009; Pakarinen 2011). A molecular approach complicated the mat- ter by revealing that C. melitaearum is a complex of several cryptic species (Kankare et al. 2005c; Stefanescu et al. 2009). Regardless, the following hymenopteran parasitoids of E. aurinia have been so far reported from the Czech Republic: Braconidae — Cote- sia melitaearum (Wilkinson, 1937), C. tibialis (Curtis, 1830); Pteromalidae — Ptero- malus puparum (Linnaeus, 1758); Ichneumonidae — [chneumon emancipatus (Wesmael, 1845), Ichneumon gracilicornis (Gravenhorst, 1849) (Shaw et al. 2009; Yu et al. 2012). Diverse methods were used so far to study the parasitoids of E. aurinia, and re- lated butterflies, ranging from field counts of hymenopteran cocoons (Ford and Ford 1930; Porter 1983), captive rearing (Eliasson and Shaw 2003), field experiments with captive-reared material (Stamp 1981) to population genetic studies targeting parasi- toid adults (Lei and Hanski 1997; Van Nouhuys and Lei 2004). However, the ques- tion pivotal to the butterfly population dynamics and conservation, that of infestation rates relative to population cycle and state of the butterfly colonies, seems to be little explored. This is probably due to the work requirements for rearing both butterflies and parasitoids (cf. Klapwijk and Lewis 2014), combined with destructivity of such methods for field populations. To quantify the parasitism rates in the Czech Republic populations of E. aurinia, we developed a molecular method, allowing rapid and low- cost detection of Hymenoptera parasitoids’ incidence. 32 Hana Konvickova et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 97: 29-42 (2024) DNA-based methods are increasingly used in studies of parasitoid-hosts interac- tions (Zhu et al. 2019; Jeffs et al. 2021). The protocols so far developed for Lepi- doptera/Hymenoptera systems mainly focused on COI locus, commonly referred as barcode (Folmer et al. 1994; Hebert et al. 2004), with the hope that the solid barcod- ing databases will assist species* identification (Toro-Delgado et al. 2022). Particularly good results were obtained via a reversal approach when the adult parasitoids were screened for host DNA shortly after their emergence (Rougerie et al. 2011) or in a spe- cies-poor natural system (high Arctic: Wirta et al. 2014). However, use of COI-based primers may be unreliable without subsequent sequencing, because deeply phyloge- netically conserved bases are few and too far between in COI to place a group specific primer. Therefore, it was necessary to find a novel primer or primer pair which would amplify Hymenoptera but not Lepidoptera in the mixed samples containing the DNA of known lepidopteran host and unidentified hymenopteran parasitoids. We found such a potential primer in the nuclear region encoding the 28S ribosomal DNA. The novel primer, together with a primer published by Larsen (1992), targets part of the 28S gene and aims to amplify only Hymenoptera. In this paper, we quantify Hymenoptera parasitoids infestation rates in a selection of the Czech Republic populations of Euphydryas aurinia and relate the infestation rates to the stage of the butterfly population cycle. Additionally, we document utility of our primers’ combination for rapid Hymenoptera infestation assessment in butterflies. Material and methods We sampled £. aurinia caterpillars in western Bohemia (Fig. 1) in late August and early September. We sampled two caterpillars per larval web (105 webs in total) from 13 sites in 2019 and four per web (90 webs in total) from 9 sites in 2020. While sampling the caterpillars, we recorded the following: Julian date, to account for infestation changes during larval period; longest and shortest dimension of the lar- val web (cm); sward height, i.c., visually estimated height of surrounding vegetation in 2.5 metre radius circles around each larval web sampled; host plant density, expressed as the number of Succisa flowerheads in the circle; and webs density, expressed as the number of larval webs in the circle. The material was stored in 96% ethanol, the DNA was extracted using the Tissue Genomic DNA Mini Kit (GenAid Biotech, Taiwan) following the manufacturer's protocol. We targeted a part of the 28S D1 region. We used primer 28SD1F (GGG- GAGGAAAAGAAACTAAC; Larsen et al. 1992) in combination with a new primer HymR157 (TGGCCCCATTCAAGATGG) with a resulting product of 164-167 bp. For the primer design, we assembled a library of target sequences (Hymenop- tera parasitoids) and non-target sequences (Lepidoptera) from sequences available in GenBank (primarily PopSet 300390962, Heraty et al. 2011). We aligned the sequences in GENEIOUS PRIME 2020.2.4 (https://www.geneious.com) software and used AMPLICON software (Jarman 2003) to identify sections with concentrat- Molecular detection of hymenopteran parasitoids 33 ed nucleotides that consistently differ between the target and non-target groups. We then manually screened these promising sections and used general rules of thumb to design candidate primers. We aimed for at least three differences between target and non-target groups in the first five positions at the 3’ end of the primer for reliable specificity. We then tested the candidate primer in an in-silico PCR in GENEIOUS and optimized melting temperature in the primer pairs by extending or shortening the primers. Each in vitro PCR reaction contained 6.5 pl of Combi PPP Mastermix (Top-Bio, Czech Republic), 4.5 ul of HOv0,5 ul of both reverse and forward primer, and 1 ul of DNA template. The cycling conditions of PCR were as follows: 94 °C of initial denaturation (5 mins), 30 cycles at 94 °C denaturation (40 secs), 50 °C annealing (30 secs), and 72 °C elongation (1 min), with the final elongation at 72 °C (5 mins). The presence/absence of PCR products was checked using agarose electrophoresis (1.5% gel, 150V, 30 mins). The samples with a band on the gel were assumed as positive; i.e., individuals infested by parasitoids (Fig. 2). To test the utility of the primer used, we also carried out control reactions which contained DNA extracted from various adult hymenopteran parasitoids and butterflies (Fig. 2) to assure that we amplified only the potential parasitoids and not the butterfly. Some of the obtained PCR products (n=4) of parasitoids from positive E. aurinia sam- ples were sequenced in SEQme (Czech Republic) to confirm hymenopteran origin. We checked the identity of the obtained sequences by using BLAST (nBLAST algorithm) (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, Altschul et al. 1990). Positive results were recalculated to infestation levels per larval web (1/0 factor, in- fested or not) and per site (% of larvae sampled). To relate the per-web infestation level to larval web properties, we carried out logistic regressions (binomial error distribution; in R 4.2.3, R Core Team 2018) with infestation (1/0) as the dependent variable; and the longest and shortest web ground projections, surrounding vegetation height, Suc- cisa density, and number of larval webs as predictors. We used the information theory approach, comparing the fitted regression Akaike information criteria (AIC) with AIC of the null model, y-+1, and considered models with AAIC > ~2.0 as fitting the data. To relate the per site percentual infestation to larval counts at the sites, we used data from annual monitoring of the sites, ongoing since 2001 (Hula et al. 2004). Over this time, larval counts were obtained for roughly % of site x year combinations (John et al. in rev., Suppl. material 1). Results Out of 210 (year 2019) and 358 (year 2020) E. aurinia caterpillars assayed for hyme- nopteran DNA, we obtained 70 and 144 positive results, respectively; i.e., the total infestation rates were 33.3% and 40.2% per individuum. On a per-site basis, this translates to mean+SD / median / range 38.5£29.89 / 40 / 0-100 per cent in 2019, and 40.1+26.51 / 50 / 0-77.5 per cent in 2020. 34 Hana Konvickova et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 97: 29-42 (2024) Agrypon polyxenae (Szépligeti, 1899) oo cynthiae ene 1888 . melitaearum oe 1937) Cotesia melitaearum (Wilkinson, 1937) ; Cotesia gades (Nixon, 1974) } Cotesia gades { (Nixon, 1974) Ichneumonoidea Euphydryas qurinia (Rottemburg, 1775) Pteromalus puparum (Linnaeus, 1758) Brachymeria podagrica (Fabricius, 1787) Chalcidoidea Cacycerus lingeus (Stoll, [1782]) (Lycaenidae) Coenonympha tullia (Miller, 1764) (Nymphalidae) Belenois aurota (Fabricius, 1793) (Pieridae) Euphydryas maturna (Linnaeus, 1758) (Nymphalidae) Figure 2. Electrophoresis gels used to assess whether the primers used can discriminate lepidopteran hosts and hymenopteran parasitoids a various adult hymenopteran parasitoids (PCRs are positive) and positive (P) and negative (N) samples of £. aurinia b four species of adult butterflies; PCRs are negative. The adult speci- mens of Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera were identified by M. Rindo’, M. Konvicka, and Z. Faltynek Fric. The sequences of the positive samples were 124—126 bp long. The most similar sequences in GenBank according to nblast algorithm are those of Cotesia glomerata (Linnaeus, 1758), with the query identity 95.2-96.03%. The next similar sequences did not even reach a match of 93%. According to the logistic regressions, none of the recorded properties of larval webs were related to infestation of the web (Table 1). At the level of individual colonies, the infestation rates were highly variable (Fig. 3a). The per-site infestation levels did not correlate with larval web counts from Molecular detection of hymenopteran parasitoids 35 Table |. Logistic regressions relating field-measured properties of larval webs to infestation of the sam- pled larvae. Model Predictor meant+SD/median/range Coefficient Residual deviance Residual DF AIC Null 1° 223.2 160 225.2 Longest dimension 4,3+2.68/4/1-13 0.038 222.9 159 226.9 Shortest dimension 7.6£12.76/12/3—40 -0.001 146.5 159 227.2 Null 2° 181.1 194 237.7 Julian date 240+4.3/238/235-248 0.052 178.9 193 259.0) Sward height 42+23.1/4/5-100 0.010 178.8 193 239.8 Host plant density 76£49.5/60/5—200 0.004 179.6 193 237 of Webs density 1.7£1.98/1/0-9 -0.095 179.6 193 236.9 The fitted single-term models are compared with the null model(s) following the information theory approach. None of the models was significant, as AAIC (null — fitted model) were always < 2.0. YWe fitted two null models, because measurements of E. aurinia larval webs were not available for 34 webs, which were disintegrated at the time of sampling the caterpillars. 23 ) 100 1000 90 » 804. 3S Ps 2 o o.6€°8 co) a = 70 e ® rol a © e 8} 100 9 = n q@ 60 e co} ~ 9 oO oO (o) oO @ 2) = © 50 e e fo) 8 @ ° ad a) (o) 6 o 2 40 es >. = o res £& 30 @ © = ~S e oO & 20 1 oo w lind fo.¢] ca ™ m w [ee] lind fas) wn MS o Oo m mM m” st + vt st wn wo ~ ~ ~ cO o © © ©» ©» wo» wow ww ow» ow» wo» © wo ww 2 + 2+ #£+ + + + FS © S&S © S&S Ff = “7 FH FHF HF H HH HF HF HF GF YH HF GF GF infestation rate 2019 @ infestation rate 2020 @ webs 2018 @ webs 2019 @ webs 2020 @ webs 2021 S. Infestation rates per site Hymenopteran infestation % (i+1) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Caterpillar webs count (year i) Figure 3. Per-site hymenopteran parasitoids infestation rates in colonies of the butterfly Euphydryas aurinia in two consecutive years (2019-20), with information of caterpillar web counts in the respective colonies in 2018-2021 (above), and illustration of the relationship between hymenopteran parasitoids infestation rates and E. aurinia caterpillar web counts in the previous year (below). 36 Hana Konvickova et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 97: 29-42 (2024) the same year (Spearman's r= 0.11, bara = 0.46, p = 0.65) or with web counts in the subsequent year (r = 0.31, bocapy = 1.32, p = 0.21), but did correlate positively with the larval webs’ counts from the previous year (i.e., 2018 web counts for 2019 sampling, and 2019 web counts for 2020 sampling: 7, = 0.46, Eagar = 2-07; p = 0.054) (Fig. 3b). Because the absolute values of web counts highly varied among the sites (Fig. 3a), depending, e.g., on the site areas, we also recalculated web counts into percentage frac- tions of a ten-year (201 1—2021) maximum for the given site, and recalculated the cor- relations, with no significant results (identical year percentage web counts: r. = —0.23, barat = —0.99, p = 0.37; previous year percentage web counts: r= Ook, Lagig- = lads p = 0.21, subsequent year percentage web counts: r = 0.10, bosap = 0.40, p = 0.69). Discussion The novel combination of primers 28SD1F (Larsen 1992) and HymR157 allowed us labour-efficient detection of high infestation rate in the declining EF. aurinia butterfly by Hymenoptera parasitoids. Sequencing a selection of the obtained PCR products suggested that some of the parasitoids belong to the genus Cotesia Cameron, 1891. This is supported by the fact that other hymenopteran parasitoids known from our region, Ichneumon spp. and Pteromalus spp., attack pre-pupation larvae and pupae, re- spectively, whereas we worked with pre-diapause larvae. The gene 28S D1 is currently little represented in nucleotide databases for genus Cotesia, which, together with the unsettled taxonomy of Cotesia wasps infecting Melitaeinae butterflies (cf. Kankare et al. 2005a, b), precludes specific identification at this moment. This highlights the need to continue building comprehensive reference libraries for species identification. Such libraries are currently well developed for the COI gene, but supplementing it with a marker in another locus could improve discrimination power in some complex cases. Still, our approach allowed quantifying hymenopteran infestation rates in the declin- ing butterfly, revealing that per-colony infestation rate is affected by larval webs density in the previous season. Although the role of parasitoids on population fluctuations of FE. aurinia, and related species, had been proposed almost a century ago (Ford and Ford 1930), rel- atively few authors quantified the natural infestation rates, with widely varying re- sults. Infestation rates of <5% were reported, e.g., for the American congeneric species E. editha (Boisduval, 1852) (Singer and Erlich 1979) and E. chalcedona (Doubleday, 1847) (Lincoln et al. 1982). Similar results were obtained for £. aurinia from Sweden, with rates 2.6% (Eliasson and Shaw 2003), and Spain, where the rates were 2.4-5.1% (Stefanescu et al. 2009). The latter study in fact covered a newly recognised species, E. beckeri (Lederer, 1853), feeding on Lonicera spp. The rates detected by us, 33.3% and 40.2% in two consecutive years, are more comparable to the situations report- ed for American E. phaeton (Drury, 1773) (up to ~10% in larvae prior to diapause) (Stamp 1981), E. maturna (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Czech Republic (69%) (Dolek et Molecular detection of hymenopteran parasitoids 37 al. 2006) and Sweden (32%) (Eliasson and Shaw 2003). For E. aurinia, values higher than ours (90%) were reported by Ford and Ford (1930) from Britain during peaks of cyclic fluctuation of the butterfly population, whereas Klapwijk and Lewis (2014) re- ported a high range of infestation rates within individual webs (4—83%) from Britain. This all points to a high variation among sites, seasons, parasitoids’ generations, and Euphydryas species in hymenopteran infestation rates. In detailed studies of the closely related Melitaeinae model species, Melitaea cinxia (Linnaeus, 1758), this variation was attributed to spatial positions of butterfly colonies, competition among parasitoids and hyperparasitism, and annual variation in weather (e.g., Lei and Hanski 1997; Van Nouhuys and Lei 2004). Arguably, some of the reported variation may also be due to the diversity of methods applied by various authors, ranging from field counts of infested caterpillars (Lei and Hanski 1997), through captive rearing (Stamp 1981; Eli- asson and Shaw 2003; Klapwijk and Lewis 2014), to molecular methods as used here. Possibly, the molecular detection reveals higher infestation rates than rearing, because some of the infested larvae may die prior to the parasitoid emergence. Causes of this mortality are then interpreted as “unknown” (e.g., in Eliasson and Shaw 2003). Klapwijk and Lewis (2014) observed that the probability of caterpillar web infesta- tion increased in webs isolated from other F. aurinia larval webs. We did not detect any relationship to the webs or surrounding vegetation parameters, but these results may be biased, because — for conservation concerns — we sampled the caterpillars solely from colonies containing a high number of larval webs during the sampling. The mean+SD webs’ number of sampled colonies were 116£97.3 and 6066.6, whereas the numbers across all colonies were 53+57.8 (n = 44) and 19+38.0 (n = 70) in 2019 and 2020, respectively (John et al. in rev.). Conservation concerns also prevented quantifying the proportion of infestation per larval web, which would require killing all the caterpillars (cf. Klapwijk and Lewis 2014). It also should be noted that our approach did not distinguish parasitoids from hyperparasitoids; i.e., the insects developing within parasitoids and thus killing them (Nair et al. 2016). A hyperparasitoid, however, can infest only a larva already infested by a parasitoid, and hence hyperparasitoids presence does not affect our findings on hymenopteran infestation rates. With all the limitations, we found that the infestation rate per site positively corre- lated with per-site caterpillar webs’ numbers of the previous year. This is fully expected if the parasitoids need a rich resource supply (i.e., high host density) to multiply in a butterfly colony, depleting the hosts’ numbers in the process (Ford and Ford 1930; Frazer 1954; Porter 1981, 1983). A time delay in parasitoids infestation, and higher likelihood of infestation of larger and more connected host colonies, were found by Lei and Hanski (1997) in the metapopulation system of M. cinxia and its parasitoids. Although the inter-annual abundance changes of Melitaeini butterflies’ colonies are likely influenced by numerous other factors, including variation in weather (Brunbjerg et al. 2017) or site vegetation management (Johansson et al. 2019; Tajek et al. 2023), natural enemies’ pressure certainly plays a significant role. 38 Hana Konvickova et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 97: 29-42 (2024) Conclusions The DNA-based method detected high hymenopteran parasitoids’ infestation rates in colonies of the declining butterfly, Euphydryas aurinia. These rates, however, widely varied among the butterfly colonies and between two study years, likely interfering with, and possibly driving, the inter-annual butterfly abundance changes within colo- nies, as well as the metapopulation dynamics of the butterfly, described in detail by John et al. (in review). Our primer combination seems to be promising for wider use in detecting infestation of butterflies by Hymenoptera parasitoids. In our control tests, it amplified various Hymenoptera but not several butterfly species tested (Fig. 2). However, potential users should first test that the detection works also in their system to avoid false positive and false negative results. Acknowledgements Part of the development of the primers took place during the stay of JH in the lab of Graham Stone, University of Edinburgh. The work was funded by the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic (SS01010526). JH was supported by Czech Science Foundation grant no. 20-30690S. References Altschul SE, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology 215: 403-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022- 2836(05)80360-2 Anthes N, Fartmann T, Hermann G, Kaule G (2003) Combining larval habitat qual- ity and metapopulation structure—the key for successful management of pre-alpine Eu- phydryas aurinia colonies. Journal of Insect Conservation 7: 175-185. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1027330422958 Anton C, Zeisset I, Musche M, Durka W, Boomsma JJ, Settele J (2007) Population structure of a large blue butterfly and its specialist parasitoid in a fragmented landscape. Molecular Ecology 16: 3828-3838. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03441.x Bene’ J, Konvicka M, Dvorak J, Fric Z, Havelda Z, Pavli¢ko A, Vrabec V, Weidenhoffer Z [Eds] (2002) Motyli Ceské republiky rozsifeni a ochrana I, II. [Butterflies of The Czech Repub- lic: distribution and conservation I, II]. Spolecnost pro ochranu motylu, Kolin, 857 pp. Brunbjerg AK, Hoye TT, Eskildsen A, Nygaard B, Damgaard CF, Ejrnes R (2017) The col- lapse of marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) populations associated with declining host plant abundance. Biological Conservation 211: 117-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bio- con.2017.05.015 Dolek M, Freese-Hager A, Cizek O, Gros P (2006) Mortality of early instars in the highly endangered butterfly Euphydryas maturna (Nymphalidae). Nota Lepidopterologica 2: OAD. Molecular detection of hymenopteran parasitoids 39 Eliasson CU, Shaw MR (2003) Prolonged life cycles, oviposition sites, foodplants and Cotesia parasitoids of Melitaeini butterflies in Sweden. Oedippus 21: 1-52. Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W, Lutz R, Vrjjenhoek R (1994) DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mo- lecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology 3: 294-299. Forbes AA, Bagley RK, Beer MA, Hippee AC, Widmayer HA (2018) Quantifying the un- quantifiable: why Hymenoptera, not Coleoptera, is the most speciose animal order. BMC Ecology 18: 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-018-0176-x Ford HD, Ford EB (1930) Fluctuation in numbers and its influence on variation in Melitaea aurinia Rott. (Lepidoptera). Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 78: 345-351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1930.tb00392.x Frazer FG (1954) High mortality of Euphydryas aurinia Rott. (Lep: Nymphalidae) from parasitism by Apanteles bignellii Marsh. (Hym: Braconidae). Entomologists’ Monthly Magazine 90: e253. Hawkins BA (1994) Pattern and Process in Host-Parasitoid Interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, [x +] 190 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511721885 Hebert PDN, Penton EH, Burns JM, Janzen DH, Hallwachs W (2004) Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astraptes fulgera- tor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101: 14812-14817. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0406166101 Hejda R, Farka¢ J, Chobot K (2017) Cerveny Seznam Ohrozenych Druhti Ceské Republiky: Bezobratli [Red list of invertebrates of the Czech Republic]. Priroda 36: 1-611. Heraty J, Ronquist K Carpenter JM, Hawks D, Schulmeister $, Dowling AP, Murray D, Mun- ro J, Wheeler WC, Schiff N, Sharkey M (2011) Evolution of the hymenopteran mega- radiation. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 60: 73-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ympev.2011.04.003 Hula V, Konvitka M, Pavlitko A, Fric ZF (2004) Marsh Fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) in the Czech Republic: monitoring, metapopulation structure, and conservation of an endan- gered butterfly. Entomologica Fennica 15: 231-241. https://doi.org/10.33338/ef.84226 Jarman SN (2003) Amplicon: software for designing PCR primers on aligned sequences. [Dis- tributed by the author, Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston.] Bioinformatics 20(10): 1644-1645. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bth121 Jeffs CT, Terry JCD, Higgie M, Jandova A, Konvickova H, Brown JJ, Lue CH, Schiffer M, O’Brien EK, Bridle J, Hréek J, Lewis OT (2021) Molecular analyses reveal consistent food web structure with elevation in rainforest Drosophila—parasitoid communities. Ecography 44: 403-413. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05390 Johansson V, Kindvall O, Askling J, Franzén M (2019) Intense grazing of calcareous grasslands has negative consequences for the threatened marsh fritillary butterfly. Biological Conser- vation 239: e108280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108280 John V, Tajek P, Marinakova Kopeckova M, Jiskra P, Zimmermann K, Hula V, Fric ZE, Konvictka M (in review) Two decades of monitoring and active conservation of the Marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) in the Czech Republic. Junker M, Wagner S, Gros P, Schmitt T (2010) Changing demography and dispersal behav- iour: ecological adaptations in an alpine butterfly. Oecologia 164: 971-980. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00442-010-1720-3 40 Hana Konvickova et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 97: 29-42 (2024) Junker M, Konvicka M, Zimmermann K, Schmitt T (2021) Gene-flow within a butterfly metapopulation: the marsh fritillary Euphydryas aurinia in western Bohemia (Czech Re- public). Journal of Insect Conservation 25: 585-596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841- 021-00325-8 Kankare M, Stefanescu C, van Nouhuys S, Shaw MR (2005a) Host specialization by Cotesia wasps (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) parasitizing species-rich Melitaeini (Lepidoptera: Nym- phalidae) communities in north-eastern Spain. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 86: 45-65. https://doi-org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00523.x Kankare M, Van Nouhuys S, Gaggiotti O, Hanski I (2005b) Metapopulation genetic structure of two coexisting parasitoids of the Glanville fritillary butterfly. Oecologia 143: 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1782-1 Kankare M, Van Nouhuys S, Hanski I (2005c) Genetic divergence among host-specific cryptic species in Cotesia melitaearum aggregate (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), parasitoids of check- erspot butterflies. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 98: 382-394. https:// doi.org/10.1603/0013-8746(2005)098[0382:GDAHCS]2.0.CO;2 Kester KM, Barbosa P (1991) Post-emergence learning in the insect parasitoid, Cotesia congre- gata (Say) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 4: 727-742. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF01052227 Klapwijk MK, Lewis OT (2014) Spatial ecology of host—parasitoid interactions: a threatened butterfly and its specialised parasitoid. Journal of Insect Conservation 18: 437-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9653-5 Konvicka M, Hula V, Fric ZF (2003) Habitat of pre-hibernating larvae of the endangered butterfly Euphydryas aurinia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): What can be learned from veg- etation composition and architecture? European Journal of Entomology 100: 313-322. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2003.050 Korb S, Bolshakov LV, Fric ZE, Bartonova A (2016) Cluster biodiversity as a multidimen- sional structure evolution strategy: Checkerspot butterflies of the group Euphydryas aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Systematic Entomology 41: 441-457. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12167 Larsen N (1992) Higher order interactions in 23S rRNA. Proceedings of the National Acad- emy of Sciences of the United States of America 89: 5044-5048. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.89.11.5044 La Salle J, Gauld ID (1991) Parasitic Hymenoptera and the biodiversity crisis. Redia 74: 315-334. Lei G-C, Hanski I (1997) Metapopulation Structure of Cotesia melitaearum, a Specialist Parasi- toid of the Butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Oikos 78: 91-100. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545804 Lincoln DE, Newton TS, Ehrlich PR, Williams KS (1982) Coevolution of the checkerspot but- terfly Euphydryas chalcedona and its larval food plant Diplacus aurantiacus: Larval response to protein and leaf resin. Oecologia 52: 216-223. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00363840 Meister H, Lindman L, Tammaru T (2015) Testing for local monophagy in the regionally oligophagous Euphydryas aurinia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of Insect Conserva- tion 19: 691-702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-015-9792-3 Munguira ML, Martin J, Garcfa-Barros E, Viejo JL (1997) Use of space and resources in a Mediterranean population of the butterfly Euphydryas aurinia. Acta Oecologica 18: 597— 612. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1146-609X(97)80044-6 Molecular detection of hymenopteran parasitoids 4] Nair A, Fountain T, Ikonen S, Ojanen SP, van Nouhuys S (2016) Spatial and temporal genetic structure at the fourth trophic level in a fragmented landscape. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 283: e20160668. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0668 Ojanen SP, Nieminen M, Meyke E, Péyry J, Hanski I (2013) Long-term metapopulation study of the Glanville fritillary butterfly (Melitaea cinxia): survey methods, data management, and long-term population trends. Ecology and Evolution 3: 3713-3737. https://doi. org/10.1002/ece3.733 Pakarinen SP (2011) Host-parasitoid relationship in different Cotesia melitaearum and Melitaea cinxia populations around the Baltic Sea. Master’s Thesis, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, 86 pp. Porter K (1979) A third generation of Apanteles bignellii Marsh. (Hym., Braconidae). Ento- mologist’s Monthly Magazine 114: e214. Porter K (1981) The population dynamics of small colonies of the butterfly Euphydryas aurinia. — PHD thesis, Oxford University. Porter K (1983) Multivoltism in Apanteles bignellii and the influence of weather on synchro- nisation with its host Euphydryas aurinia. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 34: 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1983.tb0331 1.x R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/ Rougerie R, Smith MA, Fernandez-Triana J, Lopez-Vaamonde C, Ratnasingham S, Hebert PDN (2011) Molecular analysis of parasitoid linkages (MAPL): gut contents of adult para- sitoid wasps reveal larval host. Molecular Ecology 20: 179-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-294X.2010.04918.x Shaw MR, Stefanescu C, Van Nouhuys S (2009) Parasitoids of European butterflies. In: Settele J, Shreeve TG, Konvicka M, van Dyck H (Eds) Ecology of Butterflies in Europe. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 130-156. Singer MC, Ehrlich PR (1979) Population dynamics of the checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha. Fortschritte der Zoologie 25: 53-60. Singer MC, Stefanescu C, Pen I (2002) When random sampling does not work: standard de- sign falsely indicates maladaptive host preferences in a butterfly. Ecology Letters 5: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00282.x Stamp NE (1981) Effect of group size on parasitism in a natural population of the Balti- more checkerspot Euphydryas phaeton. Oecologia 49: 201-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00349188 Stefanescu C, Planas J, Shaw MR (2009) The parasitoid complex attacking coexisting Spanish populations of Euphydryas aurinia and Euphydryas desfontainii (Lepidop- tera: Nymphalidae, Melitaeini). Journal of Natural History 43: 553-568. https://doi. org/10.1080/00222930802610444 Tajek P, Tencik A, Konvicka M, John V (2023) Vegetation changes at oligotrophic grass- lands managed for a declining butterfly. Nature Conservation 52: 23-46. https://doi. org/10.3897/natureconservation.52.90452 Toro-Delgado E, Hernandez-Roldan J, Dinca V, Vicente JC, Shaw MR, Quicke DL, Voda R, Albrecht M, Fernandez-Triana J, Vidiella B, Valverde S, Dapporto L, Hebert PDN, Tala- vera G, Vila R (2022) Butterfly—parasitoid—hostplant interactions in Western Palaearctic 42 Hana Konvickova et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 97: 29-42 (2024) Hesperiidae: a DNA barcoding reference library. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 196: 757-774. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlac052 Yu DSK, van Achterberg C, Horstmann K (2012) Taxapad, Ichneumonoidea. Vancouver. http://www.taxapad.com Van Nouhuys S, Lei G (2004) Parasitoid-host metapopulation dynamics: the causes and conse- quences of phenological asynchrony. Journal of Animal Ecology 73: 526-535. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00827.x Van Swaay C, Cuttelod A, Collins $, Maes D, Lopez Munguira M, Sadié M, Settele J, Verovnik R, Verstrael T, Warren M, Wiemers M, Wynhof I (2010) European Red List of Butterflies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Wahlberg N, Kullberg J, Hanski I (2001) Natural history of some Siberian Melitaeine butterfly species (Nymphalidae: Melitaeini) and their parasitoids. Entomologica Fennica 12: 72-77. https://doi.org/10.33338/ef.84102 Warren MS (1994) The UK status and suspected metapopulation structure of a threatened European butterfly, the marsh fritillary Eurodryas aurinia. Biological Conservation 67: 239-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(94)90615-7 Wirta HK, Hebert PDN, Kaartinen R, Prosser SW, Varkonyi G, Roslin T (2014) Comple- mentary molecular information changes our perception of food web structure. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 1885-1890. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1316990111 Zhu YL, Yang — Yao ZW, Wu YK, Liu B, Yuan HB, Lu YH (2019) A molecular detection approach for a cotton aphid-parasitoid complex in northern China. Scientific Reports 9: e15836. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52266-7 Zimmermann K, Fric Z, Jiskra P, Kopeckova M, Vlasanek P, Zapletal M, Konvicka M (2011) Mark-—recapture on large spatial scale reveals long distance dispersal in the Marsh Fritillary, Euphydryas aurinia. Ecological Entomology 36: 499-510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 25141201 1 01293,% Supplementary material | List of sampled colonies of E. aurinia Authors: Vaclav John, Martin Konvic¢ka Data type: xlsx Explanation note: Spreadsheet with information on all 97 E. aurinia colonies moni- tored in western Czech Republic in 2001-2021, with caterpillar webs counts for individual years. The fourteen colonies sampled for hymenopteran parasitoids are indicated in red. Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODDbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.97.113231.suppl1